“I just don’t believe it,” the president insists. “I believe the Republicans will end up being–running the House and the Senate. And the reason why I believe it is because when our candidates go out and talk about the strength of this economy, people will say their tax cuts worked, their plan worked. . . . And secondly, that this is a group of people that understand the stakes of the world in which we live and are willing to help this unity government in Iraq succeed for the sake of our children and grandchildren, and that we are steadfast in our belief in the capacity of liberty to bring peace.” ~Paul Gigot
I guess you might say that Mr. Bush “just strongly disagrees” with predictions of a Democratic takeover of the House, as if the intensity of his disagreement ever had any effect on reality (scary thing is, he might think that it does!). In any case, didn’t it used to be an old piece of Limbaugh shtick where he pounced on liberal Democrats every time they said they were doing something “for the children”? Weren’t conservatives all pretty much in agreement that this was a pathetic, cheap rhetorical tactic used by people who couldn’t justify policies on their merits? Because, as South Park put it so well, “If you oppose Proposition 10, you hate children.” Now Mr. Bush must be really desperate if he is persisting in his Iraq policy not just “for the children” but for the sake of “our grandchildren” as well. Indeed, Mr. Bush has grandchildren on the brain:
“But in the long run the only way to make sure your grandchildren are protected, Paul, is to win the battle of ideas, is to defeat the ideology of hatred and resentment.”
At the rate Mr. Bush is going, “our grandchildren” will still be patrolling Ramadi and Tikrit. Personally, for the sake of the present generation–to say nothing of later generations–I would be grateful if politicians who appealed to the fate of our grandchildren were severely punished come election time.